Sheoji Gochar vs State of Rajasthan

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.01.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Karwas, whereby the learned Magistrate had declined to handover the custody of the tractor in dispute to the Petitioner, and also by the order dated 07.02.2011, passed by the Additional District Judge, Ramganj Mandi, District Kota, whereby while handing-over the custody of the tractor in dispute to the Petitioner, the learned Judge has imposed a condition that the Petitioner should give a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 7,50,000/-.

Mr. Sunil Tyagi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has contended that the imposition of the condition of giving a bank guarantee is too onerous to be fulfill by the Petitioner. Relying on the case of Banshi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1354/2010, decided on 06th August, 2010), the learned Counsel has pleaded that in place of a bank guarantee, the Petitioner should be directed, in fact, to give a solvent surety of the same amount.

Ms. Alka Bhatnagar, the learned Public Prosecutor, in all fairness, has not objected looking to the order passed by this Court in the case of Banshi Lal (Supra).

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

Considering the judgment of Banshi Lal (Supra), this Court directs that the Petitioner shall submit a solvent surety of Rs. 7,50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned court in place of the bank guarantee. Upon his submitting the solvent surety, the tractor, in question, should be handed-over to the Petitioner.

With these directions, this petition is, hereby, disposed of.